Spatial Selective Auditory Attention in the Presence of Reverberant Energy: Individual Differences in Normal-Hearing Listeners

Listeners can selectively attend to a desired target by directing attention to known target source features, such as location or pitch. Reverberation, however, reduces the reliability of the cues that allow a target source to be segregated and selected from a sound mixture. Given this, it is likely that reverberant energy interferes with selective auditory attention. Anecdotal reports suggest that the ability to focus spatial auditory attention degrades even with early aging, yet there is little evidence that middle-aged listeners have behavioral deficits on tasks requiring selective auditory attention. The current study was designed to look for individual differences in selective attention ability and to see if any such differences correlate with age. Normal-hearing adults, ranging in age from 18 to 55 years, were asked to report a stream of digits located directly ahead in a simulated rectangular room. Simultaneous, competing masker digit streams were simulated at locations 15° left and right of center. The level of reverberation was varied to alter task difficulty by interfering with localization cues (increasing localization blur). Overall, performance was best in the anechoic condition and worst in the high-reverberation condition. Listeners nearly always reported a digit from one of the three competing streams, showing that reverberation did not render the digits unintelligible. Importantly, inter-subject differences were extremely large. These differences, however, were not significantly correlated with age, memory span, or hearing status. These results show that listeners with audiometrically normal pure tone thresholds differ in their ability to selectively attend to a desired source, a task important in everyday communication. Further work is necessary to determine if these differences arise from differences in peripheral auditory function or in more central function.

[1]  R L Freyman,et al.  The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Improved segregation of simultaneous talkers differentially affects perceptual and cognitive capacity demands for recognizing speech in competing speech , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Brian Gygi,et al.  Individual differences in auditory abilities. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Virginia Best,et al.  The Impact of Noise and Hearing Loss on the Processing of Simultaneous Sentences , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[5]  R W Hukin,et al.  Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  W. Hartmann,et al.  The role of reverberation in release from masking due to spatial separation of sources for speech identification , 2005 .

[7]  M. Akeroyd Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[8]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Temporal processing deficits in the pre-senescent auditory system. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  P. X. Joris,et al.  The volley theory and the spherical cell puzzle , 2008, Neuroscience.

[11]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  The effects of hearing loss and age on the benefit of spatial separation between multiple talkers in reverberant rooms. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  F L Wightman,et al.  Localization using nonindividualized head-related transfer functions. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[15]  B. Schneider,et al.  Effects on speech intelligibility of temporal jittering and spectral smearing of the high-frequency components of speech , 2010, Hearing Research.

[16]  Mark R. Anderson,et al.  Direct comparison of the impact of head tracking, reverberation, and individualized head-related transfer functions on the spatial perception of a virtual speech source. , 2001, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Audio Engineering Society.

[17]  Karen S Helfer,et al.  Speech recognition and temporal processing in middle-aged women. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  C S Watson,et al.  Individual differences in the processing of speech and nonspeech sounds by normal-hearing listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Schneider,et al.  Effect of age, presentation method, and learning on identification of noise-vocoded words. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Virginia Best,et al.  Exploring the benefit of auditory spatial continuity. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Localizing nearby sound sources in a classroom: binaural room impulse responses. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  B. Shinn-Cunningham Object-based auditory and visual attention , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. , 2002, Psychology and aging.

[24]  E. C. Cmm,et al.  on the Recognition of Speech, with , 2008 .

[25]  Signy Sheldon,et al.  Priming and sentence context support listening to noise-vocoded speech by younger and older adults. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Erika Skoe,et al.  Neural Processing of Speech Sounds in ASD and First-Degree Relatives , 2010, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[27]  P. Rabinowitz,et al.  Noise-induced hearing loss. , 2000, American family physician.

[28]  C. J. Darwin,et al.  Chapter 11 – Auditory Grouping , 1995 .

[29]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Auditory target detection in reverberation. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[31]  Barbara G. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down influences on spatial unmasking , 2005 .

[32]  Chaz Yee Toh,et al.  Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  John H Grose,et al.  Age Effects in Temporal Envelope Processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[34]  Bruce A. Schneider,et al.  The effect of age on auditory spatial attention in conditions of real and simulated spatial separation. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  Arthur Wingfield,et al.  Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. , 2002 .

[36]  J. Jahnke PRIMACY AND RECENCY EFFECTS IN SERIAL-POSITION CURVES OF IMMEDIATE RECALL. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  J. Grose,et al.  Processing of Temporal Fine Structure as a Function of Age , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[38]  Antje Ihlefeld,et al.  Disentangling the effects of spatial cues on selection and formation of auditory objects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Lee M. Miller,et al.  Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[40]  B. Ross A novel type of auditory responses: temporal dynamics of 40-Hz steady-state responses induced by changes in sound localization. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  C. Darwin,et al.  Effects of fundamental frequency and vocal-tract length changes on attention to one of two simultaneous talkers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  Mathieu Lavandier,et al.  Speech segregation in rooms: monaural, binaural, and interacting effects of reverberation on target and interferer. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  Gurjit Singh,et al.  Effects of Age on Auditory and Cognitive Processing: Implications for Hearing Aid Fitting and Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[44]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[45]  D. Frisina,et al.  Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  W. Noble,et al.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[47]  Richard L Freyman,et al.  Aging and Speech-on-Speech Masking , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[48]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics , 1976 .

[49]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[50]  Bernhard Ross,et al.  Aging in Binaural Hearing Begins in Mid-Life: Evidence from Cortical Auditory-Evoked Responses to Changes in Interaural Phase , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[51]  P. Dawes,et al.  Auditory processing disorder in relation to developmental disorders of language, communication and attention: a review and critique. , 2009, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[52]  A. Nabelek,et al.  Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[53]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  J. Koehnke,et al.  Processing interaural cues in sound segregation by young and middle-aged brains. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[55]  T. Lunner,et al.  The emergence of cognitive hearing science. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[56]  J. Culling,et al.  Speech segregation in rooms: effects of reverberation on both target and interferer. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[57]  Virginia Best,et al.  Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[58]  Frederick J. Gallun,et al.  The advantage of knowing where to listen. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[59]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Tuning in the spatial dimension: evidence from a masked speech identification task. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[60]  Sources of variation in profile analysis. I. Individual differences and extended training. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[61]  M. Liberman,et al.  Adding Insult to Injury: Cochlear Nerve Degeneration after “Temporary” Noise-Induced Hearing Loss , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[62]  Erika Skoe,et al.  Neural Timing Is Linked to Speech Perception in Noise , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.